Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Department of Cardiology, RadboudUMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Clin Cardiol. 2024 Jan;47(1):e24161. doi: 10.1002/clc.24161. Epub 2023 Oct 23.
In the Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7-Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See, patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomized to either early or delayed cardioversion.
This prespecified sub-analysis aimed to evaluate heart rate during AF recurrences after an emergency department (ED) visit identified by an electrocardiogram (ECG)-based handheld device.
After the ED visit, included patients (n = 437) were asked to use an ECG-based handheld device to monitor for recurrences during the 4-week follow-up period. 335 patients used the handheld device and were included in this analysis. Recordings from the device were collected and assessed for heart rhythm and rate. Optimal rate control was defined as a target resting heart rate of <110 beats per minute (bpm).
In 99 patients (29.6%, mean age 67 ± 10 years, 39.4% female, median 6 [3-12] AF recordings) a total of 314 AF recurrences (median 2 [1-3] per patient) were identified during follow-up. The average median resting heart rate at recurrence was 100 ± 21 bpm in the delayed vs 112 ± 25 bpm in the early cardioversion group (p = .011). Optimal rate control was seen in 68.4% [21.3%-100%] and 33.3% [0%-77.5%] of recordings (p = .01), respectively. Randomization group [coefficient -12.09 (-20.55 to -3.63, p = .006) for delayed vs. early cardioversion] and heart rate on index ECG [coefficient 0.46 (0.29-0.63, p < .001) per bpm increase] were identified on multivariable analysis as factors associated with lower median heart rate during AF recurrences.
A delayed cardioversion strategy translated into a favorable heart rate profile during AF recurrences.
在 Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7-Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See 研究中,新发心房颤动(AF)患者被随机分为早期或延迟电复律。
这项预先指定的亚组分析旨在评估急诊科(ED)就诊时通过基于心电图(ECG)的手持设备识别出的 AF 复发期间的心率。
ED 就诊后,纳入的患者(n=437)被要求在 4 周随访期间使用基于 ECG 的手持设备监测复发情况。335 名患者使用了手持设备并纳入了此项分析。从设备中收集记录并评估心律和心率。最佳心率控制定义为目标静息心率<110 次/分钟(bpm)。
在 99 名患者(29.6%,平均年龄 67±10 岁,39.4%为女性,中位数 6[3-12]次 AF 记录)中,在随访期间共识别出 314 次 AF 复发(中位数 2[1-3]次/患者)。延迟组与早期电复律组在复发时的平均中位静息心率分别为 100±21 bpm 和 112±25 bpm(p=0.011)。在分别为 68.4%[21.3%-100%]和 33.3%[0%-77.5%]的记录中观察到最佳心率控制(p=0.01)。多变量分析显示,随机分组[延迟 vs. 早期电复律的系数-12.09(-20.55 至-3.63,p=0.006)]和指数 ECG 上的心率[每增加 bpm 的系数 0.46(0.29-0.63,p<0.001)]与 AF 复发期间的中位心率较低相关。
延迟电复律策略导致 AF 复发期间的心率状况更有利。